What is war, and is it really necessary?

Its an 'unfortunate state' of 'International relations'. It would seem that the 'unfortunate aspects' arise from some 'political posture', but, not necessarily so. To be sure, its a 'political posture', but not in some complete fashion. Its a very sensitive issue, because it also arises from the 'human condition', and not 'solely' from a 'political' condition. Let me clarify. Yes, the International 'political' condition are causes for war, but the real cause, is the 'individual perception' by some leader about the 'state or condition' of his/her political entity, or Nation, in its political relations with other Nations. "War" is a term used only in International relations. In most cases its an expression of Power. When conflicts between States or Individuals arise, different terms are used. For example; "fights", "arguments", "rebellion", "revolution", etc. Of course, the 'war' between the States was called a Civil War, but was it a 'War', or was it something else? Well, that's not our issue. But, the point is that the term "War" is usually reserved for some International conflict, where all the 'stops are pulled out'. It requires a total commitment. Of course, that means all the People who become necessary. But, in actuality, a 'Nation' never goes to War; its the People that go to War; the Nation has merely had a political 'disagreement', of sorts, in its relations with other Nations. That's why most People are against War, because it is they who go to War, and furthermore, the consequences reflect on the social, economic, and living conditions, of the Nation. Furthermore, the People, in general, have no say-so about the decision. The Top of government decides to go to War. I imagine that's one of the most difficult decisions that a Statesperson has to make. The reasons for going to War is a political decision. But, the problematic arises when the Top decides to go to War, and bases the decision on a 'personal', 'personality', 'egoistic', or 'petty' basis for making the decision. That's not a 'political decision'; that, arises from some 'pugnacious', 'power hungry', element of personality. Of course, there's always the 'defensive posture', where someone else 'makes gestures' of War, and the Nation, must get involved. That's understandable, but the 'offensive posture' is never necessary. A nation should never get involved in the 'inner workings' of another Nation. At this point, the argument 'bogs down'. Just how much 'human abuse' within any Nation, is tolerable, before the people, in general, i.e. the World, decide to organize their 'strength in Numbers', to defend their humanity. It 'bogs' down, because its both, a 'political decision', and a 'human decision'. There are no easy answers, but the basic consideration should be the 'human condition', not the 'political condition'. The reason for that is simple; the human condition was here before the 'politicians' decided to 'separate' into political entities and then, declare 'political war' against each other.

Government should be administered by the 'unselfish'.

Government is just a 'political' structure crafted for the purpose of administering a Democratic form of government. "Democracy" is a form of government, that has been reduced to writing in the Constitution. Its basically a 'theoretical political structure'. That theoretical writing has to be 'related' to the Bottom of government, because that's where all the People are located, or stated differently, that's where the 'governed' are located. The Bottom of government can be referred to as a 'democratic'( little 'd') base where all the activities of the democracy are carried out. The Bottom is 'real' and the Top is linguistic.(general abstractions rule at the Top). Of course, we are using language to 'describe' a form of government, and the abstract rendition of the structure of government, any government for that matter, can be easily de-constructed. That is NOT our goal, and has never been our goal. But, when we de-construct its political structure, we see more easily, the nature of 'political power', and what is 'required' of anyone who is going to govern the many People at the Bottom. For example; There is no such thing as the Top!; There is no Bottom!; there is no middle!: (in actuality, we all live on the 'same geographical level') {well sort of; some geographically higher than others, but you get the point) The terms, "Top and Bottom" are political metaphors, and the so-called State or Nation is a 'fiction' and a metaphor. Truly, it has been geographically delineated by historical 'occurrences', and political shenanigans, and what we now call our "Nation"; and our "States", are all legal "fictions". Well, nevertheless, that's where we are; and the People at the Bottom are the 'governed'. But, the People are 'real', you and I are not fictions. But, my point is, understanding the 'thicket of legal fictions' within which we live, how is it that some 'political leaders' have such a big ego, when, in fact, they are leaders of "legal fictions" and 'linguistic metaphors'? To be sure, language and power, 'rules' at the Top of government; the Top that 'needs Leaders', and heaven knows, we at the Bottom need Leaders and States-persons, to govern us also, but, where do these Leaders get the idea that they're so important and so powerful? If elected, they really do seem to get a 'big head', and they really seem to feel 'powerful', even if only for a short time. The fact is that the people have 'attributed power', to the Top, of the political structure. Leaders and Office holders, need to be 'self-less'. We understand that's not easy, especially at such 'powerful', 'metaphorical levels', but stop thinking about yourself, and start thinking about the People, all the People. We want you there to do your job, but please understand 'your real situation' as a political Representative, and the needs of the 'real people' at the Bottom. That's government. We're not saying your not real, but as a Representative, put your 'personal ambitions' on hold. If you don't, the people will do it for you.

Language is always about 'something else'; political language is about government, and 'governing' is about People.

Language is always about something else; political language is about the structure of government; and the structure of government is about 'governing' millions of 'real' People. Government, in order to be effective, must have a triadic structure; the top governs the Bottom, and the 'sides' interpret the Constitution, or, in other words, government is a Three Branch structure; those who govern, those who are the governed, and those who interpret the words of the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution is in writing and must be interpreted, but the Bottom does not have to be 'interpreted'; it is constituted of millions of real individuals. The Top is linguistic, the Bottom is real. One of the problems with political language, is that the language used to refer to the Bottom, in its 'condition of togetherness', retains its 'abstract' nature. For the purposes of communication and for establishing general formulations of a Democracy, that's ok; but the execution of any policy, or law, must be 'reduced down' to specifics in order to determine, if that policy or law, is effective within the body of individuals, who actually live in the democracy. Ordinarily, we use words like, "the social", "society", "the People", "the governed", "citizens", etc., to refer to every individual living at the Bottom in a 'condition of togetherness'. In the term, the 'condition of togetherness', each and every 'individual' is a 'separate, real, human being'; a 'real' individual. There could be no 'togetherness', if there was no real 'individuality'. That's why I insist on using number, to determine the validity of democratic Law and Policy. If anyone is left out of the 'democratic equation', because of 'racial' or 'economic status', its not a proper equation, and it can't be democratic. Each and every individual, constituting the People, are the most important part of any, and all, governments, and everyone needs to be accounted for, everyone needs to be counted. Government is necessary because there are millions of individuals, but individuals are more important than governments.

"Capitalocracy", after all, may not be such a bad neologism.

Capitalocracy may not be such a 'bad' neologism. Capitalism is important, but it does not exist as an isolated instance within the polity. Obviously, money, the 'motor' of capitalistic activity, determines the success or failure of the economic system. The 'motor' of Capitalism should not be 'changed', nor 'controlled', because then, no one would 'compete' to acquire more and 'more' of the same. Even though, 'competition' between individuals, has been completely eliminated by the corporate structure, it is universally accepted that 'accumulation of huge profits' is a direct result of the 'corporate structure', hence, the term, "the corporate society". So, instead of changing or controlling the so-called, 'spirit' of Capitalism, why not include some of the 'important elements' of a Democratic society within the economic institutions, corporate ownership, notwithstanding. Include 'democratic elements' within the economic institution, and then enforce that activity by means of Law. This would not be an unfair move for the simple reason that government creates "corporate fictions", in the first place, and, subsequently, protects them by legal decisions. And, as everybody now knows, the Supreme Court is now allowing 'them' and the 'rich' to 'take control' of politics. A Government of Three Branches, ( that should be 'balancing' power) but, instead, has one of its Branches, 'providing' for 'economic values' to infiltrate the government structure, does not make sense. Its 'economic obscenity' at its worse, and its a sad commentary on the 'interpretive practices' of the Supreme Court. Everyone also knows that Capitalistic activity would 'not have thrived' if it were not for democracy. Try installing, so-called "free enterprise, or, the so-called 'market economy',( another fiction, heaven help us), in an Autocratic form of government. Truly, we need a healthy economy, but the only thing that will hold it together are democratic values, not economic values. Its pay-back time; its time that the economy acknowledges that, if it were not for democracy, they would not be at the 1% line; and its time for Government, to get better 'control', of its 'economic behemoths'. Government should not be 'mute', in the face of its own 'unraveling'.

The essence of Capitalism, is a 'fiction'.

We've said that Capitalism and Democracy can, and should, work together. But how is that to be done? To be sure, there are no easy answers. Nevertheless, both systems are essential to real democracy. However, this is not to say that Capitalism is more important than democracy. On the contrary, democracy and the Freedom and Equality of each and every individual is of paramount importance. A democratic system, if its going to hold together, needs political values and these cannot be relaxed. Economic values will never work. Of course, it also needs economic values for an economically viable system. Truly, the problematic in a capitalistic system is not the system itself, but the individuals who implement it, and the existence of a 'corporate society'. Of course, money as a medium of exchange is essential, otherwise we're back to apples for oranges. However, the 'medium of exchange', or the value system of money, is an 'imposition' on the structure of the economy, and consequently, also the structure of government. But, the structure of living in a 'condition of togetherness' is vital to a political system. No nation can exist without its People. The Capitalistic system is superimposed upon the 'condition of togetherness' as a means of 'economic survival'. There is no 'chicken and egg' question here. The viability of the 'condition' is dependent on the economic means of 'subsistence'. We also know, that an economic system must have a 'viable system of exchanges' and that, by itself, an economy cannot 'motor' a political system. Its like having a 'smoothly functioning room' full of 'Many' (think, the One and the Many) valuable essentials'; a room whose 'integrity' ( think integrated) is dependent on those essentials. If we walk into the room and always remove the 'same item' from it, 'in a matter of time', the room will collapse. Why? because, the 'integrity' of the system has been compromised. If one 'essential' is removed from any 'fully functioning system', the system is compromised and will 'fall' on its face. That is what is happening to the economy, when the 1% compromises the medium of exchange, or simply, money. And that is also why, the economic system is trying to take over the political system. Money is a 'fiction', an abstract determinant of the 'value' of an 'apple' and an 'orange'. To be sure, its 'surreal'. Its important, but please, don't misunderstand, as such, its 'empty' of the 'essentials' of a 'real life'; a life of Freedom and Equality. The 1% need to 'get a life'. Don't be fooled by 'economic fictions'. We've already been 'fooled' by "legal fictions".

Democratic values are in danger from 'within' the structure of Democracy.

Democratic values are in danger. They are in danger from the 'Bottom' of government, as well as from within the structure of a Democratic Government. As we know, the Bottom is where the People exist in a 'condition of togetherness'. The danger that exists at the Bottom is the 'shift' from political values to economic values, or simply, "money" and its concentrations. It seems that just about everyone is more concerned with accumulating more, and more, money, than with Freedom and Equality. The People have lost their 'connection' with freedom and equality. Sure, there's still too much 'racial injustices' occurring. But, we have lost our connection with the 'evolving experiences' of freedom and equality. Yet, the larger injustice is the 'assumptions of power' by people with money or possessions. These assumptions of power have substituted economic values for political values, or, stated differently, have substituted money, for freedom and equality. Money influences everything, and that includes politics, as well as, the form of government. Need I add, money and possessions has become more important than freedom and equality in the social. Democracy and the Constitutional structure of the Government is not immune from these 'economic influences'. The proof of that, is the recent rulings of the Supreme Court. Yes, Citizens United, and now, McCutcheon v. FEC. So here we have the People at the Bottom becoming more 'grasping' about money and possessions, and now, we have a Branch of Government, viz. the Judicial Branch, even making it easier for the people to concentrate economic gain at the Top 1%. And these decisions were decided by the Supreme Court. The Judicial Branch of government has decided, that 'money' is more important than 'freedom and equality' and that, "legal fictions", as well as the 'rich', can contribute as much money as they want. So, the Court, is also, 'money motivated'. I tell you, money has 'overpowered' the Branches of democratic government, as well, as many of the People at the Bottom. Where has freedom and equality gone? It used to be that the People, all the People, could participate in Government; it used to be that an individual did not have to have lots of money to participate. Now, only the 'rich' can 'play politics'. The 'wealthy', and the Supreme Court, 'open the door' so that the 'art of advertising' can 'sneak' into the 'political world'; while those not influenced by such shenanigans, await the arrival of a 'real States-person'. Where are the 'real States-persons'?

The greatest danger to democratic values is their replacement by economic values.

The greatest danger to a democracy is the replacement of democratic values by the infiltration of economic values into the Top of Government. That can happen very easily. Democratic values are the Freedom and Equality of each and every individual at the Bottom of government, as well as the democratic structure given us by the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about the economic structure. The governmental structure is a political structure and that structure is set forth in the Constitution; that structure is 'constituted' by means of a Three Branch Government. The composition of the Three branches are described in the Constitution. But, technological progress rapidly changed the agrarian economy into a technological economy and then into an economy of production dominated by corporations. Now, our own 'democratic values' are being challenged by economic values, or, simply, by money and possessions. Money, possessions, and large chunks of money, has had a tremendous influence on the democratic values of freedom and equality. To be sure, money is a direct result of a successful economy. Its not bad in itself. Nevertheless, distinctions have to be made. The very basis of a democratic way of life is the freedom and equality that everyone should enjoy. The success of a capitalistic economy is based on that freedom and equality. So, the question arises, then, why is it wrong for money to be involved in our democratic way of life. Well, lets face it, its here to stay. That's true, but, we have said, money in itself, is not the problem; the problem is the greed behind the accumulations of a medium of exchange, whose nature is to circulate. And that's only the beginning. It appears that we are going in the direction of establishing a form of government, that, in the past, is established at the very inception of government viz. a Plutocracy. Were creeping up from a democracy and abusing the freedom and equality of a democracy to amass large chunks of money, by the top 1%, in order to change the government from a Democracy to a Plutocracy. The problematic is greed and hoarding. Both, of these phenomena, need to be addressed. If it can not be 'controlled' maybe the answer is to require more 'duties' from the 'economic corporate structures'; duties that require 'help' towards the economy. After all, corporations have benefited greatly from the political values of a democratic social. If the corporate structure was given a 'larger economic grasp', why can't they also help with the 'economic institutions' in a 'democratic social'? Instead, corporations pay less taxes than a 'real individual', they out-source work to avoid paying local wages to local employees, and to pay 'cheaper wages' for production. Corporations need new legal duties to help the local institutions of the Democratic social that gave them their arising. Failing that, Involuntarily dissolve the Articles of Incorporation.

'Real' democracy, is not just 'talk', its also a 'walk'.

A 'democratic social' is characterized by the Freedom and Equality of all the people at the Bottom of government. The main characteristics of a democracy are the freedom and equality that exists at the Bottom of government. The Top of Government can call itself a Democracy, and yet not be a real 'democracy'. The real test is always the conditions in which the people actually live. The Top can use all the linguistic labels that apply to a democracy, and yet, not implement them in actuality. Implementation is important, lest we remain 'captive' to the 'talk' of democracy. One is a linguistic label, the other is a reality. The 'natural' gap that exists between the Top and the Bottom of government is a linguistic one. What does that mean? It means that the Top must use language in its formulations; because the linguistic 'generalities' must apply to everyone, and hence, must include everyone, but only in 'linguistic fashion'. But, this fact, leaves the 'real individual' at the Bottom, untouched. The only way the Top can 'touch' the individual at the Bottom, is to implement a Policy, or law, that is 'democratic'; that is, that applies to everyone at the bottom in an 'equal manner'. But, that last statement takes us right back to the problems that we said arises between language and actuality. That is why, the Bottom of government must use 'Number' to verify whether, a law or policy, actually applies to everyone within any 'one category'. For example; lets 'use' a very general democratic phrase, like "in a democracy everyone is free and equal". Well, that applies to 'everyone', and that means, each and every individual, within the 'social', at the Bottom. But, we're still not 'outside' the words. Hence, we apply 'Number' and 'count' the individuals to whom the general phrase applies and we find that the 'black' race and the 'brown' race, are not included, and we also find that the 'rich', are included, but, not the 'poor', in the enumeration. Then we can be sure that all that 'talk' about democracy is just that, 'talk'. 'Number' cannot be 'disfigured', 'generalized', are circumvented, by 'political talk'. Number is subject to 'counting', and hence 'included' or 'excluded'. Government must use Number to determine whether any one policy or law reaches 'everyone' for whom it was enacted, or whether, its just empty 'democratic talk'. Sure, we must do the 'talk', but we must also do the 'walk'. Hey, its not just 'your' government, its everyone's government.

All Governments, whether Democratic or Autocratic, are about millions of People.

Government is about governing. That may sound simplistic, but governing is about People, and when one realizes that the 'objects' of all governing are millions of People, at the bottom, the complexity of the situation can be appreciated. Regardless the type of government at the Top, the Bottom of governing, in all cases, is always people, millions of People. The 'distance' created by language when the 'relation' between the Top and the Bottom is merely linguistic, is insurmountable. The relation must be 'real'. By 'real', I mean, it cannot remain a mere linguistic label; that would 'interfere' with the real relation between the Top and the Bottom. A mere linguistic relation is 'open' to much verbal manipulation. Unfortunately, such linguistic shenanigans characterizes politics. Of course, politics treats political language as a 'mere linguistic' relation and hence, introduces many variables into the real relation. A real relation 'directly' affects the people at the Bottom. Policy and Law should be categories of 'democratic thought' that directly effects the people. I use the term 'democratic' thought because in a democracy all policy and Law directly effects the people at the Bottom. The Top of government only has a duty to carry out, and to effect, in a direct manner, the category of people to whom the policy or law is directed. All Law and all Policy, in a democracy, relates to the Freedom and Equality of the individual at the Bottom. Of course, in Autocratic rule, the Laws and the Policy implemented by the Top, is done in such fashion as to 'solidify' the power at the Top. In such cases, the Bottom doesn't have much say-so about any policy are law; the people are there to be ruled. In a Democracy the People are 'governed', not 'ruled'. The term 'ruled' has a top to bottom relation that constitutes a 'one-way' street. Its a 'dead-end' street. In a democracy, 'governing' People becomes a 'two-way' street; the relation is from Top to Bottom and from Bottom to Top. There is 'control' from the Top to the Bottom, and there is 'control' from the Bottom to the Top. The Law applies to both ends of the 'governing relation'. Democracy is a government, "of people", "by People", and "for people". Its never a 'dead-end' relation.

Democratic 'politics' is a serious 'business'; but, democratic elections can be hilarious.

Politics is a 'serious' business but, democratic politics can be vicious and hilarious. How can anything so 'serious', become ludicrous? That's easy. Its the result of the initial division of the Many, or, the 'Peoples', at the Bottom of democratic government into political Parties, and the subsequent vicious, adhesion, to so-called, 'Party loyalty'. Comes election time, and all the 'comedians' come out. Its really insulting. I mean, do the politicians really believe that the public actually believes all the 'antagonistic' remarks that are published? Yet, with the many uses of 'advertising techniques', instead of political 'statesmen-ship', we become 'inundated' in an avalanche of 'information' that is difficult to ignore. Some of these so-called 'political issues' draw more 'attention' than the first showing of the Godzilla movie. Of course, that's the goal of political ridiculousness. Maybe all politicians should be given psychological evaluations before they are permitted to 'run'? Maybe it takes a 'brain-dead' type of 'self-evaluation', for any one 'individual' to think s/he can assume a 'political position' within a democracy? Hey, it's 'serious business'. (Notice, that even I cannot ignore the word 'business' in the discussion of a political situation.) Politics is about 'Statesmen-ship', not about economic advantages, nor adhesion, to Party politics. Sure, they divide to 'conquer' at the polls. But, politics should be about 'driving the ship-of state', i.e. the 'whole' ship-of State, not about dividing the ship-of-State into Parties. The Duty of the One is to establish a 'real relation' to the 'real People' at the Bottom of government; and then, to abide by the 'political principles' of Freedom and Equality of each and every Individual at the Bottom. Economic principles and all their institutional 'off-spring' exist for a different reason, and have absolutely nothing to do with competence to 'drive' the whole 'ship-of state'. The two principles must be kept separate. Driving-the 'whole' Ship of State requires a certain 'selflessness'. That, should be the 'quality' possessed by someone seeking political office. Of course, even someone with that 'quality', must first 'survive', the 'information overload' created by the political division into Parties. How can politicians become more serious? How can we, as individuals, become 'whole' again?

The Judicial Branch must interpret the Constitution, but it must be objective.

All the Three Branches of Constitutional Government must play their proper role. Democracy, i.e. a democracy of the People is dependent on the proper functioning of each of the Three Branches. To be sure, each Branch can violate its proper function. The Executive can engage in activity that is not considered 'democratic'; the Legislative can violate its proper 'representative' function; and the Judiciary can violate its proper function by 'reaching decisions' that are unfounded on democratic principles, and that just don't make any sense, much less, democratic sense; e.g. the Citizens United Case. If the question is asked, " which Branch in Triadic government is the most important?", the answer, of course is, "all three are important". Nevertheless, the Judicial Branch has a more 'serious role',( if it can be said in that manner), than any other Branch, in that it is 'slightly' more important than another; why? because we 'depend' on its 'professional judgments' in Law; (the other Branches don't pass judgments on Constitutional law, but only carry out the interpretations of the Court); not to mention the fact that any other Branch is in Office for just a few years, after which they have to be voted back in. Not so with the Judicial. They're appointed for life; hence, they can 'freeze' the 'conversation' in some rigid manner, which renders the results thereafter, un-democratic. How? Well, consider the fact that a 'holding' that a corporation which is a 'fiction'; i.e. unreal, and really doesn't 'speak' and which exists 'only in contemplation of law', has a Constitutional 'freedom of speech', and has a right to engage in politics by means of 'contributing money' to the political process. WOW. Hey, corporations are not real people; the Courts even consider them 'fictions', and the money contributed should be in circulation in the economy, and not 'bolstering' corporate advantage, and helping an 'economic value' to solidify its position within a democratic social that gave it its arising. The end result is, economic values trump democratic values. And to boot, its done by means of a 'judicially created fiction', that needs no further 'extension' into the social. And certainly, corporations don't need protection from the People; to the contrary, the People need protection from a 'corporate society', a value system founded on a recognized 'legal fiction'.

Both, Democracy and Capitalism, must function in everyday life.

Both Democracy and Capitalism must be functional in everyday life but, they must function in a harmonious manner. The problematic arises when Capitalism wants to take over a Democracy or political system that will not 'work' with the principles of a Capitalistic economy. An Autocracy might work, but a democracy can never work on the basis of a Capitalistic arrangement of a power structure. Make no mistake, Government is a power structure. But, in a Democracy, the power has been 'given' by the People at the Bottom of the structure. It has done this through the electoral process. The Representatives at the Top have power. But, only for the duration of Office. The source of that 'temporary attribution' of political power are the People at the Bottom. A democracy, being a 'Peoples government' is the source of all political power. How can that be? Well, the Many People at the Bottom, in their 'condition of togetherness', have strength in Numbers i.e. 'together' they are 'stronger than the 'Institutional One' at the Top. Truly, many people together are 'stronger' than any One individual. Nevertheless, the people in a 'condition of togetherness, can transfer their 'strength' in Numbers into an 'Institutional locus' of political power, viz. the Top of government. That is the way a Democracy functions. Capitalism is different. Capitalism would not work without the profit motive which automatically leads to 'greater' and 'greater' or just 'more' and 'more' of the same. That's ok, when it comes to the economy and its driving force, 'money'. But, that's a different value system from the Freedom and Equality necessary for the 'condition of togetherness'. Money is only a 'fictional medium' of exchange, it propels the economy. It should not be hoarded, or, at least, not to the extent, that situates all revenues at the top 1% of the social. The medium of exchange must circulate at the Bottom of the social; it must circulate to the benefit of the democratic social. If the economy cannot bring this arrangement about, then its time for government to intervene. Capitalism 'grew' in a Democracy; Democracy can never 'grow' in a Capitalistic form of 'governing'; that would be a Plutocracy, and that would destroy the 'economic benefits' that could benefit a Democratic social.

Democracy is essential to Capitalism; 'Democratic Capitalism' is essential to Democracy.

Capitalism has become an irreplaceable Institution in our Democracy. To be sure, its an economic institution but, is 'motored' by a profit motive; not by the Democratic political motive, of Freedom and Equality. Obviously, a profit motive engenders a competitive spirit. But, the economic motor and the political motor must be kept separate; if not kept completely separate, they must, at least, have equal responsibilities. The two principles should not be mixed nor be antagonistic to each other, nor should the political engine be replaced by an economic engine. Since democracy respects and protects the institutions of capitalism, as it has in the past, because many economic institutions have their 'source' in the Freedom and Equality guaranteed to all 'Persons', which legally includes a Corporation. Capitalism should reciprocate by supporting the institutions in the social and in the economy. By that I mean that the 'competition' engendered by the corporate structure should not violate the political principles of Freedom and Equality of the individuals in a democracy. As it is, a corporation is considered by the legal system as a "legal fiction". In other words, it doesn't really exist; of course, only "in contemplation of law". Hence, a Fiction. That, already unbalances the 'competitive scales'. A real human being competing against a corporate structure? Come on, where is the balance? Of course, some will say, well anyone can incorporate his/her business; so just incorporate. But that's not the problem. The problem is that an 'abstract fiction' has a greater 'economic grasp', than a real individual and hence amasses great profits. In order to bring this result, it was necessary to incorporate the businesses. But, the answer is not to put a 'cap' on profits but, to legally have the created 'person', or "fictions" assume some social and economic responsibilities, such as those related to the 'work force', employment, employees, and institutions of a 'social nature' or institutions of an 'economic nature'. These social and economic responsibilities should be 'backed' by Law. If there is no compliance, and the law can't put the 'corporation' in jail, put the Real people behind the 'corporate shield' in jail. Corporations have given us a great economy; isn't it time they reciprocate to the economic institutions and the people at the Bottom who helped them generate so much profit. It took 'real people' to 'motor' and to generate profits for the corporations. A successful economy cannot function well without corporations; but, the economy needs a Democracy, not a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy. If we ever get a Plutocracy or Oligarchy, the economy will collapse. ( maybe that's our problem) Hoarding income at the top 1% does not benefit an economy that should function as a democracy.

All Nations need an 'economy'; in the U.S.A., the economy is Capitalistic; so, what's the problem?

Capitalism 'works' in a Democratic economy. Capitalism flourished in early America, and is still flourishing, because it 'functions' in a Democracy. In any other form of government, it may not have flourished. In a Plutocracy, the rich at the Top of government would have remained rich, but the economy, in general, would have suffered. In an Oligarchy, the Top would have remained rich or powerful, but the economy, in general, would have suffered. In an Autocracy, the Top would be rich and powerful, but the People would be 'hurting'. Why? Simply because all these latter forms of government emphasize the Top and exclude the Bottom. The people are at the Bottom. In a Democratic form of government, the government is "of People", "by People", and "for people". In other words, in a democracy, both the Top and the Bottom 'matter'. I'm tempted to say, its one Great, Big, Happy Family, but, its not! Unfortunately, the 'Capitalistic' economy is too busy trying to change the nature of government into a Plutocracy, or an Oligarchy, but, in no case, an Autocracy. Why not an Autocracy?; the answer is, the People would never stand for that, because only the Top and no one else, would have political power, and who would want to give that a try? Never, in a Nation where the People have 'tasted' Freedom and Equality, at the Bottom of government. However, the transition into a Plutocracy or an Oligarchy, would be easier. Why? Simply, because the rich and the powerful would 'substitute' a medium of exchange, i.e. Money, 'hoarding money', and 'power' in the 'few', in lieu of Freedom and Equality of all the individuals at the Bottom. How ironic. Capitalism grew because it had Freedom and Equality, and now it wants to hoard the 'benefits'( the 1%) at the expense of the system and the democratic principles that allowed it to flourish. In such a case, the Plutocrats or the Oligarchs, would 'solidify' their gains into a 'different form of government'. So, that's the problem. The political principles that brought us to this stage of 'governing' must be protected, or Capitalism must change and become more democratic, and that could be described as a Capitalocracy. Not a very good term; if you can coin a better term, please let me know. Nevertheless, the term is descriptive of the process of Capitalism within a democracy with Institutions and People who function 'together' in Democracy, and who also benefit from the Capitalistic 'impulse'; not just the 1%, and not just the rich. That could eliminate 'excessive' hoarding.

The Bottom line of a Nation are the 'Many', thats why the principles of democracy are important.

Democracy is about the Many, in the basic political 'relation' of the One and the Many. Nevertheless, the One or the Top of any and all governments is always an individual, or, the few individuals, who 'inhabit' the Top as Leaders. There are many 'political problems' in the assent from membership at the Bottom, to a position at the Top of government. Regardless, the form of government, or the manner in which the 'leaders' get to the Top of government, there are other problems that face the structure of a government. One of the problems is the 'value system' of the economy; simply, the profit motive, money, and possessions, hoarding, or Capitalism. Capitalism and the 'profit motive' cannot drive a political entity. The 'profit motive' is best described as 'cut-throat activity' to outdo the neighbor, or more euphemistically, 'competition'. Of course, we all know what competition means, 'to defeat or win' over engaging in the same activity with another. That is an economic principle, not a political principle. A political principle requires, or should require, a Leader to treat every individual coming under his/her jurisdiction in the 'same' manner. There can be no preferences in a Just political system. Simply put, the Freedom and Equality of every Leader and of every individual under the Leaders jurisdiction is assured. No exceptions. All humanity is equally human. Even though every human being must fend for his/her economic success, governing is not about 'competition'. Governing is about Freedom and Equality. Competition is about the economy. Don't mingle the two principles. The economy can never survive on the basis of Freedom and Equality. Government can never survive on the basis of the profit motive. However, every Nation has, and needs, an economy for its Peoples. Governments should use economic principles to help govern the masses, but to govern according to political principles. To some extend, it already does this. Government has budgets, taxes People, builds roads, arranges housing, provides Social Security to those who have contributed to Social Security, provides government assistance to the sick and needy, etc., and provides help on the basis of the political principles of Freedom and Equality. The economy can thrive under a Democracy of Freedom and Equality; but a democratic government cannot function on the basis of a 'profit motive': that's why we don't need a Plutocracy nor an Oligarchy; and that's why we need a 'Capitalocracy'( less hoarding of money and possessions). If Democracy 'functions' for the benefit of the People, so can Capitalism.

Every Nation has a People and every 'Nation' is an 'abstraction'.

The 'name' of every Nation is a generalized abstraction, and hence, has characteristics or 'elements' that give it an Identity and a 'constitution'. By constitution, I mean all of its People in a 'condition of togetherness' gives the Nation its sense of 'Identity', i.e. its Name, and also a sense of 'being constituted' as a People. Of course, that 'sense of being constituted' as a People, is what we, in a Democracy, consider as given in a Written Constitution, which sets forth the structure of the Nation. A Constitution can be written or not. If its written it 'gives' a sense of being 'a commitment' because its written nature makes it available to every individual within the Nation, and hence is available, if necessary, for their own study. If the Constitution is not written, it has to much 'wiggle room'. If a Nation exists without a Constitution, its sense of Identity is that of an Autocracy, because the people have no say-so in the constitution of the Nation, or, the operation of the government. Of course, an Autocracy is recognized as a Dictatorship, or some specie of autocratic rule. An Autocracy is a 'pure sense' of Rule over the People. An Oligarchy changes a little bit; it's rule by the same small group of Individuals, over and over. A Plutocracy is rule by the Plutocrats, or by the rich. Every Nation has a government and every Nation is recognized as one of the above listed variations. Fortunately, we have abstract terms that describe the different kinds of governments, and, which help us analyze the characteristics of each. But, these terms apply to the Top of government and to the manner in which it governs the People. It is undeniable, that the best form of government is a 'Peoples' form of government. And truly, it can be called a Government 'of People', 'by People', and 'for People'. This is a phraseology that emphasizes the importance of the People at the Bottom of government. The People are at the Bottom, i.e. they are the ones being ruled, in a Democracy, as well as, by the forms of government listed above. They are the ruled, not the Rulers. So what do the politicians do to give that process a bad name? They refer to the People in a 'condition of togetherness', as a 'social' and 'coin' the term, Socialism!. That gives the People a bad name! But, obviously, the People can't rule from the Bottom. The Top rules. We must listen very carefully to the words of the Politician.

The 'common characteristic' of each Nation, on the International scene, is People.

Each Nation has its Government. Each Nation has political power. But, all Nations have 'a people'. Each nation has succeeded in giving itself a political Identity, viz., it has 'clothed' the One, i.e. the 'structure of a governing' relation with the 'Many', i.e. the 'Peoples' under its jurisdiction. In other words, all Nations, or all governments, are 'relational' affairs. By that, I mean the One governs the Many. It has to be that way, except for the Triadic form. There are no other ways of 'governing'. The One becomes institutionalized into a 'form of government' with power that relates to its People on the National scene, and relates to Other Nations on the International scene. On the International scene, the relation is one, or should be, of 'Equal Power'. Hence, the relation between Nations is a relation of 'equal power'. Nevertheless, Nations don't, or shouldn't, have an 'issue' with 'Identity', nor 'Power'. But, obviously, Nations on the International scene, because of their individual power, over their People, cannot be 'unified' by means of their Political Identities. Why not? Because the retention of their 'political identity' as Nations, is a retention of their attributive 'power', over their People. That's why you can have a 'United' Nations but, not a 'United Nations', constituting one Great, Large Unified World Nation. To be sure, there's a difference. Consequently, the only way to 'unify' world governments, is to Unify the common characteristic of all nations, to wit; the human condition. In unifying, the Free and Equal 'human condition', we unify the world of Humanity. Why not? All humans are Free and Equal. Of course, there's always that old die-hard, that lays claim to superior race, or intelligence, but lets hope that they will continue to dwindle, or fade away. The truth of the matter, is that no government 'creates' its People, and consequently, governments have a 'right and power' to 'govern', because ultimately, 'government' was 'created' by the People, and hence, no one 'individual', nor 'government', can judge the superiority, or inferiority, of the human race, or of any one race. Hey, humanity is here to stay, unfortunately, it may destroy the world, but it won't be because of any one Superior Race, or Superior government. It will be from some 'self-centered','selfish', 'power hungry', politician. Where are the Statesmen?

In one sense, the International is no different from the National.

In one sense, the 'National' is similar to the 'International'. That is to say, whether Nationally or Internationally, the underlying aspects of both political entities are the 'Peoples' within the geographical boundaries describing their sense of Identity as a political entity, i.e. as a Nation. But, the same 'condition of togetherness' underlies all Nations, regardless their location or sense of Political Identity, as a separate Nation with political power. In the same manner, as the 'essence' of a Democracy, being the 'Peoples' at the Bottom of government, so the essence of an International politics are the different 'Peoples' underlying each National Identity. The biggest dilemma facing the International sphere is the sense of 'separate Identity' of each Nation. Survival in the World is not possible if each Nation emphasizes its Identity as being 'separate', and having more 'power' than another. The World is a Planet where human life exists, and where humans arrange themselves into Nations, for 'political purposes'. The 'condition of togetherness' of 'Political entities', is very different from the 'condition of togetherness' of the People within any one Nation. 'Freedom and Equality' should definitely, 'motor' a National Politics( as in a Democracy), whereas, the National 'Power' of each nation 'motors' International relations. True, both scenes have 'a People', but International politics does not 'move' on the basis of the People within another Nation, it moves on the basis of International 'expressions' of National power and International 'relations' between Nations. Of course, Nations have the right to select their form of government; nevertheless, underlying all forms of government, are the 'Peoples' of each Nation. The World should be 'unified' as a People; not as Political entities seeking ways to increase their power on the International scene, or ways to 'increase' their National boundaries. The bottom line of any Nation as a 'political entity', are the human beings, that 'allow' the Leaders to govern them. Nations and States may be 'political fictions' with power, but underneath each Nation, are the Many; i.e. real human beings.

The International 'game' is different than the National 'game'.

Obviously, International politics is different from National politics. When International politics uses the terminology of National politics, it just 'doesn't get it'. Everyone knows that National politics is a direct reference to the National situation, whether institutional, legal, social, or even structural. But, the relation of one Nation to another, or, to all Nations in the World, requires a different International dialogue, one that relates directly to all the Nations, as Nations, in the same World of Power. The International 'game' differs from the National 'game'; and that applies to each and every Nation as a separate political entity with Power. Of course, the National has its problems, and the National, within the International, also has its problems. By that I mean, the vocabulary of different 'International arrangements', differs from the arrangement, of 'National arrangements'. One 'arrangement' could be a Democracy, while another could be a Dictatorship. To mix the 'International dialogue' with the National dialogue in such a situation, just doesn't make sense, even to someone not sophisticated in International politics. When an International leader uses a 'racial slur' extracted from a National 'problem area' within any one Nation, S/he just doesn't get it. The racial slur is on the same level, on the International scene, as something we call, on the National level, 'name calling'. How ridiculous. What kind of leadership can be expected from an International leader that reduces International politics to the level of a little boy engaged in 'name calling'; "my dad can beat up your dad" type of mentality. That, is dangerous. When the personal becomes the 'instigation' of International 'political postures', we are in deep trouble. The People of the International sphere must realize that the problematic of International relations, cannot be played by the rules of any one Nation. If 'race' becomes an issue on the International sphere, every single Nation is in trouble. Why? Because, every Nation is 'Peopled' by a different race. Hey, we need to wake up. Peoples within any Nation learning to 'live together' in a 'condition of togetherness', is one problem; and it needs to be worked out; On the International scene, that problem should 'not exist'. Internationally, any one Nation that cannot live with the different races of Other Nations, in the World, is in deep trouble. In such a scenario, what are the chances that the mind set of, "my Dad can beat up your Dad" will prevail. What are the chances for International peace? Unfortunately, all the problems of politics, both National and International, are dependent on the 'human condition' of the 'Leaders'. How can we change that? I don't know, but I do know, there are more 'People' in the World, than 'Leaders'.

Racial discrimination is the peak of 'asininity'.

Racial discrimination is asinine. Consider it closely. One human being allegedly claiming to be 'superior' to the Other. To be sure all human beings have the same 'functions', but different human 'ways' of interpreting and relating to the 'world' outside her/his skin. In such interpretations and relations, we are 'different', i.e. we have different 'personalities', different 'likes' and 'dislikes', and have different 'possessions'; i.e. we have 'more' or 'less' of these possessions, and last, but not least, 'have' different quantities of 'money'. These so-called 'differences' are said to create a belief system in different classes of human beings. There lies your social classes! Every single characteristic that determines the social class is 'un-human'. (I have to use that term, because that's the only opposite term of human.) Also, most of these characteristics relate to the economy, namely, to the Capitalistic values of 'profits', 'possessions' and 'position' of 'class', and 'influence' and also of 'education'. But, notice the emphasis on 'possessions' and 'money', and notice how the possession of these 'products', facilitates the further acquisition of 'more of the same'. Hey, the 'true value' of a democracy is the Freedom and Equality that one can enjoy. What 'good' are all these possessions, if one is sick or cannot function as a 'human being'? You ask, "and what would that be"? Just 'function' within the 'condition of togetherness' in a 'democratic way', i.e. in a Free and Equal 'manner' as a human being. I hate to disillusion anyone out there, but when 'push comes to shove', 'possessions', 'money', and 'classes of all kinds', are not going to make a bit of difference. Every 'human' being is just as 'human' as every Other 'human being', and to make social distinctions on the 'simplistic' basis of 'Race', or possessions is just, 'not to get it'. 'You' don't get it.

I am One; you are One; 'We' are Many; we are 'the People'.

Never let it be said, that "We the People", are not important. "We The People"..., are the most important element of any and all governments. Governments, as important as they are, must take 2nd chair to the People. A government is important, even very important, but the people are more important. A government can change into a 'different' type of government, but the 'condition of togetherness' can never do 'without a government'. Its ridiculous to 'try to shut down' government. In that view, 'someone out there doesn't get the picture'. That's not even a political position; that's political suicide. A 'condition of togetherness' needs government, and government needs a 'condition of togetherness'. A society cannot have One without the Other. The unfortunate aspect of government is the misplaced emphasis on 'where' to place the 'importance', Nay, the necessity, of Government. Sure, its important, but like I said, Government must take 2nd chair to the People. As important as government is, it must recognize that government is "of People", "by People", and "for People". Democratic government is government by the 'same people' who constitute the Governed, i.e. Democratic government is 'self-government'. Governments are 'political institutions', and "We the People", need them. Any attempt to 'shut down government' is a form of 'political suicide', with a simultaneous introduction of 'chaos' into the 'condition of togetherness'. We need Government and government needs the People. Well then, 'who' are the People? The People are the 'essence' of government. It is, you and I. "I am One, you are One, We are Many". Each of the Many are One; One is a number, hence, "We are Number", and number is a quantity and it can be 'counted'. 'Everyone counts' in a Democracy. Lets judge Legislation, Policy and Law, by number, and we can't go wrong. Democracy, at the Bottom of government, is a 'political equation', and 'each' and every number counts in an equation.

The People are the important element of any and all forms of government

Truly, we have different forms of government and each government has its People. Some governments are Dictatorial, some Democratic, some Plutocratic, and some are Oligarchic. There are probably other forms, but the main characteristic is that they all have a People. They are the individuals at the Bottom who are governed or, in some cases, ruled. In all these forms of government the important aspect of any 'condition of togetherness' are the individuals who constitute the 'condition'. Governments are established institutions that arise out of necessity. The different names attributed to them are abstractions. Even a so-called Democracy is an 'abstract' term that refers to the 'structural arrangement' of the government at the Top, as a Three Branch Government, and its relation to the 'condition of togetherness' at the Bottom. The 'condition of togetherness' is the condition, constituted by each and every member of the social. A Democracy 'proudly' refers to the fact that it is a government established "by the People", "for the people" who established it. Of course, this fact does not make the democracy a perfectly functioning government, nor are we saying that. But, the term itself describes the 'nature' of the government. In other cases, the term attributed to the governments also describes the structure or form of the government, but the emphasis is on the power at the Top, not the People under its care; in a Dictatorship; the Top rules, period, in a Plutocracy; the 'rich' Top, rules, in an Oligarchy; a select 'power hungry few' always rule. In these other forms of government the 'People' don't matter. But, the bottom line in any governmental structure, should be the 'People', because without People, there is no one to govern, and no need for government. Government seem to have elevated itself as a necessary institutions of power, which is a fact, but the other fact, is they are necessary only because there are Many People. Without People, no government. Hence, all governments should exist for the benefit of their People. Democracy has a head start in this process, and the People of a democracy need to learn how to exercise their political Freedom and Equality, in a Democratic manner. The strength of a Democracy depends on 'the People'.

A Nation is a 'political institution' with Power; a Religion transends the National and the International.

A Nation, all Nations have great Power, and they must. They must because they Respect and Defend the Many human beings within their geographical boundaries. Maybe, I should say, they 'should' Respect and Defend, the Many within their geographical boundaries. The term "should" already distinguishes a Democracy from a non-democracy, but 'only' theoretically. Theoretically, because sometimes even a Democracy or a 'purported Democracy', does not respect the human 'integrity'. Again I use the Term "integrity" to refer to the 'integrated Nature' of the individual human being. But, since the Bottom or the People in a Nation are the 'essence' of that Nation, most human Rights, in a Constitutional Democracy, that are protected by a Constitution, relate to the 'human integrity'. In other words, Government is 'here' to serve the human condition; that's Governments duty. However, we cannot elevate the 'human condition', to some level of 'egotistical self-importance', nor deny it to any one individual. Most human beings understand that they are 'more' than what they understand about themselves, and most human beings profess a religion that expresses that relation. That's why the Constitution protects religion. Religion has nothing to do with government; its a different 'relation' and a 'different endeavor', and every individual is free to believe whatever s/he wants. The 'relation' of religion is 'higher', more 'cosmic', and transcends National boundaries. Of course, there's always the possibility of a wrong interpretation. Regardless any misinterpretation, no Religion, because of its Higher Order, will condone violence against the human condition. No individual should be allowed to 'hide' behind such a wrong interpretation. Nevertheless, Government has no business 'governing' an individuals belief system. That's not government. Government relates to being able to 'live' in a 'condition of togetherness', or stated differently, in a condition under Law. That why, when the term law is used its almost always accompanied by the term "Order"; hence, Law and Order. Law and Order regulates the 'condition' as harmoniously as possible. Law is always changing, as it must, because the 'condition of togetherness' is always in motion as a 'large condition', continually attempting to 'hold' the condition together, or, stated differently, continually attempting to hold it in an integrated fashion. A Nation cannot have a 'belief' in a cosmic scheme. "It" doesn't think. It can have an 'institution' that accepts a particular interpretation of a cosmic scheme but, that's different from 'having' a belief. No one, no Nation, no institution, can limit what an individual accepts as his/her relation to 'something higher' than a National or International political Organization. All Nations should respect all religions, and under no circumstances, condone violence, in the name of religion, against the human condition.

Democracy is about People; but People must learn to 'live' in Freedom and Equality.

The reason Democracy is the best form of government is that democracy recognizes the Freedom and Equality of the Individual. In this way it acknowledges the fact that People 'establish' and 'create' Governments and that Government does 'not create' People, nor the 'condition of togetherness'. The essence of Democratic government are the Many people at the Bottom of the triad of Government. This differs from an Autocratic Government that just 'assumes' control over the Bottom and either disregards their rights to a 'life', or, exerts Power from the Top over the individuals at the bottom in some arbitrary manner. In those cases, the Bottom is not important. But, the important point of all Governments, regardless their type, is that the individual's Right to 'Life' should be respected and protected by the Power of the government; i.e. by the Power of the Top. In a Democratic form of government, we have pointed out the importance of 'living democratically', as contrasted with, living selfishly and 'isolating' oneself from the 'condition of togetherness'. Consider this; If I just think of myself and ignore the 'condition of togetherness', the 'condition of togetherness' will not hold. The 'condition of togetherness' must be held together by the Individuals respect for the Freedom and Equality of the 'Neighbor'. This attitude 'brings' all the people together. If that should occur in 'any form' of government, the form of government would not matter. A Dictatorship could have a very 'fair and democratic' form of government, if the individual who rules is a fair and a 'good guy'. But, that does not happen. Look, government is about power and the power at the Top is exercised by an individual from amongst the 'governed'. The Ruler was not flown in from some strange place with some superior power to govern the little guy. No, the bottom line, in all governments, are the individuals at the bottom, because they create or should create governments. If all 'Rulers' or 'Governors', were good guys, the form of government wouldn't matter, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. What does that say about the individual? That says that its the Individual that is important in all forms of governments. In a Democracy, that is why, its important that the People choose the 'right' individual to do the 'governing'. The Constitutional phrase, " We the People..." does not 'hide' anything, government is about People. 'People' constitute the Nation and a strong Nation is one where the People 'hold together'. Leaders are people too and they should govern democratically, because they also come from the Bottom. Its very important to choose the right leader. No government is so strong and Just, that it can ignore the individuals at the Bottom.

The bottom line in a democracy is that each individual is Free and Equal.

We know that the essence of Democratic Government are the Many or, stated differently, the essence of government are all the People at the Bottom. The Freedom and Equality of every individual has been emphasized as the essence of any and all Governments. Yet the People are at the Bottom of the Governmental triad, i.e. they constitute the governed. They don't govern. The Top, whether Autocratic or Democratic, is the locus of Political Power and Authority. That top governs in a Democracy, or, an Autocracy, and even a Plutocracy. The Top is political power. Nevertheless, the Bottom is the essence of 'governing' because without a Bottom there would be no need for any type of Government. The Bottom line in all governments, are the Many People at the Bottom, of the Governing Triad. The People 'create' government and the democratic form is the best there is. So, what's the problem? Unfortunately, and sadly, the People do not know how to 'live' in Freedom and Equality. An Individual who is Free and Equal can do whatever pleases him/her so long as its within the confines of Constitutional Law and Constitutional Institutions of society. Freedom and Equality are characteristics of the Bottom of Government, not the Top. The top has Constitutional duties to carry out and that within a short period of time. The Bottom gets to enjoy Freedom and Equality within an established political system and in a Democracy, the People are at the Bottom. "We the People..." are given Freedom and Equality and yet, we do not know how to handle it. Why? Its simple. Individuals are too prone to live a life of self-importance, selfishness, and greed. In other words, we want to live in a 'condition of togetherness', yet we do not know how to 'share' and how to 'live together'. Freedom and Equality require sharing, not isolating ourselves from the Other and 'groping' around the 'condition of togetherness', seeking for 'advantage', whether personal, political or economical. That's our downfall. We transfer a personal inadequacy into a social goal that excludes the Other. As individuals we are overcome by our self-importance, greed, and wanting more an more of the same. No. We are the 'Many' and we must live as a 'Many'. This can only be done in a spirit of co-operation, community, and within a 'condition of togetherness'. Together, the Bottom can be strong.

Both, the Top and the Bottom, in a Democratic Nation, are important; The Top must follow the Constuitution; the Bottom must 'live democracy'.

Both the Top and the bottom are important in a Democracy, and furthermore, both must remain 'active'. By that ,I mean, both must play their roles within the social. The Top acts in a 'Representative" manner and the Bottom lives 'democratically. The Top follows the 'structure' and the 'laws' set by the Constitution, and which have been established by Constitutional adjudication. The establishment and subsequent evolution of 'democracy' did not take place, on one bright and sunny day. It took years and, to our shame, some issues have not yet been resolved. One of those issues is the issue of race. The issue was Constitutionally decided by the Supreme Court, in Brown vs. Board of Education, some 60 years ago. One has to ask, what has taken so long to implement the Decision within a Democratic society? Consider, the Citizens United Decision of just a few years back. Immediately after the decision, the economic sector set itself up, immediately, to begin pouring lots of money into political campaigns. Why didn't that happen with Brown vs. Board? Well, Discrimination against Black people existed within the early Colonies for a long time. Not until Brown did the Court recognize the freedom and equality of the Black race, but only after long battles in the schools and in the public domain. Nevertheless, the problem of racial inequality within the political system is still with us. How strange, Dictatorships don't recognize the equality of the human condition, because they 'discriminate' against all races, except for the individuals at the Top. To them, its a power game. To the contrary, democratic values purport to recognize the Freedom and Equality of the human condition, but they discriminate against the members of some races, and espouse the superiority of the White race. How strange, Autocrats say, we, the Leaders are superior human beings, and the Democrats say, everyone is equal but, the white race is the superior race. Neither of the two, seems to understand that Government is a 'man-made' institution, and it would not exist, but for the human condition, which consists of all races. People need Government, but, not a Government, that elevates itself to glorious heights and then claims a Superiority of the political. The Autocrats claim superiority at the Top; the Top of 'power'; Democrats claim equality and freedom for all, at the Top; but the white race remains superior at the Bottom. The Autocrats discriminate at the Top, the people in a democracy discriminate at the Bottom. Both are wrong, because the Top would not exist but for the people at the Bottom, and the Bottom is the source of all power in every 'political institution'. This fact points to the fact that in some Democracies, its the people who are the source of many of the prejudices in the social and in government. The people in a democracy have duties also; they have a duty to 'live' democracy, not just pay it lip service.

The 'media' is an important factor in democracy, but, it must be kept objective.

Democracy is about People, lots of people. The essence of a democratic government are the People, or, the 'Many' at the Bottom. The Top, or the 'One', called the 'Government', is an abstract formulation about a governing 'center of gravity' of the masses. Of course, we have already emphasized that the Individual at the Bottom, is the essence of governing. Hence, the 'bottom line' for a Democracy is always the freedom of speech of the individuals at the Bottom. Of course, no one individual can say that s/he knows the 'Other' so well, that s/he understands and knows about all the opinions 'held' by the 'Other'. There's too Many of them. Here enters the media! The media reports whatever it decides is 'newsworthy'. That word is an invented word that is practically meaningless. Of course, there are 'important' events, taking place, and also 'less important' events. What to write about becomes the big issue for media institutions. There is no limit to what could be called 'newsworthy'. But, unfortunately, there are also other motives for reporting or writing, and the dominant issue is always, will it attract attention or 'will it sell'? 'Economic values' have infiltrated the social milieu and the dominant concern is, 'is it marketable'? If 'something' attracts attention, the media will not turn it loose. Instead, it will help 'publicize' it, and, in many ways, help it escalate. The media is never held to a criteria of 'write about democracy' only; and rightfully so. Freedom of the Press is pretty much a freedom to write about whatever you please. But, the media also has a responsibility to write, or report events, as truthfully as possible, and furthermore, not to take sides, or 'fan the fires' of 'racial discrimination', 'class warfare', or other, 'social inequalities' that 'may' or 'may-not' exist. A certain objectivity is required in 'reporting'. 'Reporting' is essential to help circulate the many opinions, that may exist in the social, as well as to, notify the Public of what takes place within the 'halls of Government'; and also to keep abreast of what is occurring on the International scene. Of course, the 'media' can be abused. A big factor in elections is all the negative reporting and publicity by candidates against their opponents. The media, as institution, merely reports these individual conflicts between candidates. It has been said, that political candidates no longer study 'statesmanship', instead they study, and apply, the laws and rules of 'advertising'. The issue is always 'how can I sell myself'? How sad. The rules of the economy and the rules of a democracy are different and they must be kept separate, lest we become a Plutocracy, or, maybe something 'worse', a "huge economic institution with, 'dog eat dog', values".